The cutscene was hardcoded it turns out
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
256 points (74.4% liked)
Comic Strips
18481 readers
2145 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wait… wouldn’t the plane just, like, collapse in on itself? Or at least just fly through Superman and have a Superman sized hole in it? I mean, he just stands there like an immovable object.
Even if he were to slow it down - it’s not designed to withstand being held by 10cm2 anywhere.
Here comes WTC7 and the planeless unexplained collapse, too 😂
A 10 storey gash and sprinklers not turning on tends to create those conditions for collapse 🙃
Heat rays can’t melt high tensile steel.
In a world with Superman, a crazy supervillain doing an inside job to try and make Supes look like he failed would be totally plausible.
Isn't this a plot point in Batman v. Superman? A bomb at a congressional hearing kills everyone but Superman.
Sounds like a fake movie that doesn't exist as anything but a hypothetical origin for a future Injustice-type Superman.
I thought the joke was he flew through the building to stop the jet.
In panel 2, there are speed lines showing he flew down from above to catch the plane. He didn't fly through the building.
The joke is that the building was rigged to collapse anyway, poking fun at that infamous 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Here for the jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams fun!
You are forgetting about the chemtrail chemicals...how hot do they burn???
This one is the most annoying for me. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of heat, where a person clearly doesn't understand that heat can accumulate regardless of where it comes from.
It's like saying a garden hose cannot fill up a swimming pool because the mouth of the garden hose isn't as big as the pool.
The most annoying part is that steel beams don't need to come anywhere close to melting temps to lose structural integrity.
And that the building itself may contain other unknown components that may make a jet fuel fire worse
I am 99.9999% sure it has already been proven that jet fuel alone was able to defeat the structural integrity of the steel used under those loads, but too lazy to check because disproving a disproven again isn't worth the effort.
No need to add extra details for conspiracy theorists to latch onto.
What about an airliner's worth of pulverized aluminum?
There was a documentary of a private investigation where they looked into that very topic. It was on very late at night and I fell asleep.
Never seen it since. So pissed about it.
I saw it something like that in Germany on ARTE, but they didn't produce it themselves. Maybe BBC or so.
It was a documentary looking into several of the conspiracy theories, debunking them.
The airliner's aluminum is the simpler explanation for molten metal than any "thermite" ideas.
I just searched for it, also with chatpgt help, but can't point a finger to the three or for documentaries that seem to come up, it's too long that I've seen it.
That one doesn't bother me quite as much, just because it relies on some finer numbers regarding the structural properties of materials, that people won't realistically have day-to-day experience with. They have to trust sources, which I do understand people sometimes being reluctant to do for whatever reason.
The concept of heat accumulation in an enclosed space is something everyone has experienced, though. If they have cooked, or gotten into a car in the summer, or any other manner of experiences, they should realize how it works with just a minute or less of thinking. If you contain heat, say, inside of a building, it can build up. Simple as that. Very intuitive, can be fully understood by even a small child. These folks would understand it too, if they just thought about it for a second instead of just believing randos on the internet who are appealing to their feelings.
Im sure most people have experience with plastic becoming bendy before it melts. It's not hard to translate that to metal.
Yeah, okay I'll grant that.
It's not even that. It's a refusal to acknowledge the beams don't need to melt, they need to soften just past load carrying capacity. Metal increases in ductility with heat until it slowly becomes liquid and skyscrapers have a fuckload of weight on them
The whole conspiracy theory centering around Building 7 completely neglected that the sprinklers simply weren't able to be turned on, or work with any pressure, and that the building design was enabling the fire to reach stupidly high temperatures.
They evacuated the area when the building started BULGING and a column was shifting out of it's socket.
Perfectly consistent with loss of strength in the beams.
Which one is more fantastical, a flying, super-strength, alien humanoid; or a covert, large-scale demolition operation with not a single leak?
I take second.